ANAND PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application (CM No.5143 of 2012) for placing on record the notification dated 23.2.2012 and letter dated 29.2.2012 (A-1 and A-2, respectively). The impugned notification dated 28.1.2011, which has been challenged in the instant petition, stands withdrawn. As a natural corollary, the consequential action resulting in issuance of circular dated 2.2.2011 would also be nullified. In the application the prayer made by the applicant-respondent-State of Haryana is that the prayer made by the non-applicant petitioner stands conceded by stating that before resorting to any selection, a criteria in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission is being finalized. In that regard, a letter has been addressed to the Haryana Public Service Commission on 29.2.2012 (A-2), in which specific reference has been made to the instant petition.

(2.) NOTICE of the application.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the main notification dated 28.1.2011 is withdrawn then the consequential action in the form of circular dated 2.2.2011 (P-9) would also stand nullified. The prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of the aforesaid order has been rendered infructuous. The other prayer for framing of criteria for selection and appointment in accordance with the fresh criteria, has also been rendered infructuous inasmuch as in para 4 of the application it is conceded that the respondent-State is in process of finalizing fresh criteria in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission, which is evident from letter dated 29.2.2012 (A-2). It has also been undertaken that no selection and appointment would be made before the finalization of the criteria. It is made clear that a copy of the criteria may be furnished to the petitioner and may also be put on the website of the Haryana Public Service Commission so that any judicial remedy available to the petitioner or anyone else may be availed. We also make it clear that we are not opining on the question of vires of the Rules because the main prayer made in the petition has been conceded. Consequently, the aforesaid issue is left open.